Alas, this is where the many historical accounts of slavery falter. Conventional history fails to even ask, let alone answer, such an intriguing question. Understandably, Islamic missionaries brought to subSaharan Africa by Muslim slavers could not convert more southerly African tribes. People harried by Muslim-induced slave raids were far from eager to convert to the religion of the raiders. In fact, those enterprising Muslim missionaries who ventured to convert the victimized tribes, even during times of intermittent peace, would meet vengeance.

Further, Islamic law forbids Muslims to enslave Muslims, hence converting tribes which were the source of slaves would interfere with slave-trading profits.

Christians in Europe thus unwittingly granted Islam a 1000-year head start in altering the destiny of subSaharan Africans. Yet Muslim missionaries, by siding with Muslim slavers instead of opposing them, forfeited the enviable advantage that 1000-year head start afforded. Had they opposed slavery instead of condoning it, Muslim missionaries could have spread Islam all the way from the Sahara to Africa’s southern tip. But history had willed otherwise.Teaching the Koran, building Mosques and founding Islamic schools with not a hint of contest from Christians, they could have Islamicized an entire continent.

Christian missionaries, arriving belatedly in the early 1800’s, would have had to struggle to win even a tiny beachhead anywhere in black Africa. Planting churches in Zimbabwe and Zululand would have been as difficult as planting churches in Algeria and Libya.

Muslims in those days little dreamed that a later century would bring scores of woefully late but zealous Christian missionaries from Europe and America to the very tribes Muslim missionaries had consigned as prey for Muslim slavers. Had such a premonition crossed Muslim minds, Islam might have ended its complicity with the slave trade industry.

All of black Africa as far as Cape Good Hope would then have been Islamicized with relative ease centuries before the first Christian incursion. Instead, though they arrived ruefully late in black African history, a relative handful of Christian missionaries have caused 250 million black Africans in subSaharan Africa to be categorized today as Christian!

In Uganda, David Livingstone often found himself looking into the muskets of Muslim slavers who were incensed at a Christian who urged them to end something they had been doing with impunity for a millennium.

The christians in turn, enslaved and converted entire tribes for their evil profits.

The Muslim Arab slave traders who from the 7th up to the 18th century had not bothered to carry out any thorough conversion of the tribal folk of Central Africa, decided to move in belatedly after 1784 and establish a permanent rule over the tribal regions to prevent their conversion to Christianity. This fact is lost sight of by many historians.

In fact the competing proselytization activities of the Muslim raiders and of Christian missionaries led to the drawing of fault-lines of civilization in Central Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Southern Sudan, Northern Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and others parts of Africa, where populations of the Muslim and Christian converts faced-off each other. There were many cases where one tribe would have adherents of both Christianity and Islam.




________________________________




The competing proselytization activities of the Muslim raiders and of Christian missionaries led to the drawing of fault-lines of civilization in Africa For instance, many in the Cape Malay tribe, have embraced the Islamic faith, but some of them have embraced Christianity. But the unifying factors for both the Muslims Malay and Christian Malay tribal folk is that they have preserved their pre-conversion Malay heritage. There are many such instances across Africa.

The Muslim-Christian conflict in Nigerian cities like Kano that sometimes spills over to Ibadan, Lagos and to the capital city of Abuja is also due to differences in religion among the Nigerians all of whom are from related Negro stock.

The city of Kano is first mentioned by traders in the 10th century and was ruled by a non-Islamic clan viz., the Hausa. The Hausa who were able to emerge as the new power in the region were closely linked with the Kanuri people of Kanem-Bornu (Lake Chad), the Hausa aristocracy was forced to adopt Islam by the first wave of Arabized Muslim invaders who ravaged Kano in the 11th century.

But the Hausa converts remained only nominally Muslims, in fact so very nominally, that the city was attacked once again by the Arabized Muslims who were this time led by the ethnic Fulanis in a jihad, or Holy War.

The population of Kano was once again forcibly re-converted to Islam in the 15th century 400 years after it had been initially converted to Islam. Its Hausa leaders were accused of having lapsed from Islam. This was typical of the conversion of the African clans to Islam. They never whole-heartedly embraced Islam, but looked upon conversion as a tactic to buy peace from their warlike Muslim tormentors.


_____________________________________
For instance, most of the Cape Malay tribe, have embraced the Islamic faith, while some of them have embraced Christianity. But the unifying factors for both the Muslims Malay and Christian Malay tribal folk is that they have preserved their pre-conversion Malay heritage. As against this, among the Griqua tribe most of them are Christian, predominantly converted by the Dutch missionaries, but there are Muslim pockets among the Griqua tribe too. There are many such instances across Africa.

i believe the objective of the first thread opened to spread lies against islam and provoke muslims did not succeed:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-693608.288.html

hence,you saw the need to open another ignorant thread.

your thread is really worthless because it lacks historical facts.infact it contains historical "errors".

islam came into sub-saharan africa mainly through trade.the salt trade for example was an important connection.the same can be said about east africa and south-east asia.

one thing that obstructed islam from penetrated into central africa is geography.aside,from that nothing else can be used to explain the reality.

west africa is very close to the northern part of the continent and west africa was also the area of major african kingdoms that arose.there was exchange of trade and ideas and thus the introduction of islam.

east africa along the coast is also close to the horn of africa and arabia. traders could sail through the arabian sea into the indian ocean and land into east africa.for instance the word "mozambique" is a muslim name that was distorted by the portuguese invaders and colonizers.the name belonged to a muslim ruler of that area in present day mozambique.he was musa bin baique.

in south east asia the promiximity to muslim ruled india and the spice trade again ensured the exchange of goods and ideas and the spread of islam.

in all these instances,islam was spread without bloodshed,resistance or invasion.no arab army stepped foot in those areas of the globe.these are very basic and elementary knowledge and historical facts that one should know from secondary school.even europe and american history textbooks reports these accounts.these accounts actually cast doubt and prove false the claim that islam was spread through the sword.the people of these areas proved that islam is attractive to them and to this day they have remained muslims even after the influence of the europeans and the quest of colonization to christianize these places.

Islamic africa

[img]http://expat.files./2008/02/sr140_map_africa_muslim_population_2005_sm.gif?w=510[/img]

topography maybe.

heavily forested areas, etc.

[img]http://lovelifelikeyourself.files./2010/01/africa-islam-christian.jpg[/img]

nigeria is on the fault line, i see.

oh. i forgot. there is no single muslim in south africa; all the whites, blacks, colored and asians are christians.

you only have some jews; honorary whites, just lke the japanese.

^^ "mostly"

ok, i actually hadnt known the coloureds were mainly muslim, and malay.

and they did jihad in south africa to convert them, while the white afrikaans actually turned the other cheek and apartheid is a post president mandela phenom.

^i dont get your point.


the coloureds separated themselves from blacks and formed their own class.


how apartheid happened remains the subject of investigation.

and from the wiki link, it seems malay and bengal [indian] slaves were shipped to south africa by the europeans, and being muslims, spread islam there.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ white people [christians] got involved in slavery?

well. they helped spread the "JIHAD". no?

They certainly did.

And yes, white people (christians) were involved in slavery.
Is that news to you?

Sweetnecta:

^^^^^^^^^^^^ white people [christians] got involved in slavery?

well. they helped spread the "JIHAD". no?

ARAB Muslims were and still are the author and finishers of SLAVERY.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsaPQ8jOqGo?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

frosbel:


ARAB Muslims were and still are the author and finishers of SLAVERY.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsaPQ8jOqGo?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

loser!

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-704349.0.html

ARAB Muslims were and still are the author and finishers of SLAVERY.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsaPQ8jOqGo?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

I can assure Islam as a religion will definitely have a big blow dealt on it by internet and information The reason why people are not aware of the atrocities they have committed in the past is because of lack of information. The entire Middle East (turkey, Morocco and Tunisia) were convert s to Islam by violence. PS. No body should quote me unless you have a valid information to counter what I said.

patani:


I can assure Islam as a religion will definitely have a big blow dealt on it by internet and information The reason why people are not aware of the atrocities they have committed in the past is because of lack of information. The entire Middle East (turkey, Morocco and Tunisia) were convert s to Islam by violence. PS. No body should quote me unless you have a valid information to counter what I said.

You are the one making the claim,the onus is upon you to prove it.

Full text here : https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-that-ISIS-is-practicing-pure-Islam-as-Mohammed-did-in-7th-century-Arabia-Why







Do you agree that "ISIS is practicing pure Islam as Mohammed did in 7th century Arabia"? Why?
This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

47 Answers
Mike Muluk
Mike Muluk, Author, "How Muhammad Stole the Judeo-Christian Tradition"
Updated Jun 7
Short answer:

Yes. ISIS does exactly what Muhammad did in the 7th century. And it also adopts a lot of what the subsequent “rightly guided” caliphs did. Because after all, ISIS is a Salafi organization (Salaf- as in “Al-Salaf Al-Saleh” = the rightly guided predecessors - referring to the four “rightly guided” caliphs following Muhammad).

Long answer:

Let’s take a look first what ISIS is doing. If we can agree what these “atrocities” are, then we can look further and dig deeper whether we can find something similar in Islamic scripture and history.

So, here’s what ISIS does:

BEHEADING OF PRISONERS


Scriptural base:

Qur’an 8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”

Qur’an 47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”

What Muhammad did:

Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah

Narrated Aisha . . . No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? . . . I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Abu Dawud)

TAKING FEMALE SEX-SLAVES


Scriptural base:

Qur’an - 4:24 - "And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.

What Muhammad did:

Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, # 2150:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." (See Qur’an 4:24 above)

Sahih Bukhari Vol.3 #432

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence."

Sahih Muslim, Vol.2, #3371

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".

Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, page 151

"He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir."

Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194

"He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."

THROWING DOWN HOMOSEXUALS FROM ROOFS AND STONING THEM AFTERWARDS


Scriptural base:

Qur'an 4:16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447 Narated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

What Muhammad and companions did:

Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version...on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law] had two people “burned” and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them.

Modern Exegesis:

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 5177

Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq judged in accordance with this, and he wrote instructions to this effect to Khaalid, after consulting with the Sahaabah. ‘Ali was the strictest of them with regard to that. Ibn al-Qasaar and our shaykh said: the Sahaabah agreed that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be killed. Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq said that he should be thrown down from a cliff. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said that a wall should be made to collapse on him. Ibn ‘Abbaas said, they should be killed by stoning. This shows that there was consensus among them that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be executed. This is similar to the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning the person who has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram [incest], because in both cases intercourse is not permitted under any circumstances. Hence the connection was made in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Loot, kill them.” And it was also reported that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram, kill him.” And according to another hadeeth with the same isnaad, “Whoever has intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill the animal with him.” (Narrated by Ahmad, 2420; Abu Dawood, 4464; al-Tirmidhi, 1454; al-Haakim, 4/355).

Imam Sirajudeen Bakrin, Nigerian Tribune, December 30, 2011

However, there is a divergence of opinions on the methodology to be used in executing the punishment. While some scholars such as Abu bakr [the first Rightly-Guided Caliph] and Ali [Muhammad's son-in-law and the fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph ] were of the view that such a person should be beheaded and set on fire thereafter, Umar [the second Rightly-Guided Caliph] and Uthman [the third Rightly-Guided Caliph] thought the wall should be fell on him. To Ibn Abbas [Muhammad's cousin], he should be taken to the tallest building in the town, thrown upside down while some men stand on the ground waiting to meet him with stone in replication of the destruction done to the people of Lut (Lot) by Allah.

STONING OF ADULTERERS


Scriptural base & what Muhammad did:

Sahih Bukhari (6:60:79) - Two people guilty of illegal intercourse are brought to Muhammad, who orders them both stoned to death.

Sahih Muslim (17:4192) - "in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year"

Sahih Muslim (17:4196) - A married man confesses to adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones. According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and had to be dragged back.

Sahih Muslim (17:4206) - A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, then has her stoned.

The description is graphic: "Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her."

Ibn Ishaq (970)

- "The adulterer must be stoned." These words were a part of Muhammad's farewell address to his people on the occasion of his final pilgrimage to Mecca.

ASSASSINATION OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS & “SLANDERERS OF ISLAM”


What Muhammad did:

Bukhari vol.3 book 45 ch.3 no.687 p.415.

(687) Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, 'Who would kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf as he has harmed Allah and His Apostle? Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, 'I will kill him.' So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka'b and said, 'I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of foodgrains.'" After dickering over what to hold as mortgage, they agreed that Muhammad bin Maslama would mortgage his weapons. So he promised him that he would come with his weapons next time."

Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76 / 995-96.

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.

The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," conjectures Ibn Ishaq.

Al-Tabari vol.9 p.167:

Al-Aswad was assassinated because he claimed that he was a prophet, after coming out of the Khubban cave. He was killed a day or two before Mohammed's death.

Al-Tabari vol.9 p.121

"The Messenger of God called me and said, 'It has reached me that Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh al-Hudhali is gathering a force to attack me. He is either in Nakhlah or 'Uranah, so go to him and kill him.'"

Abu Dawud vol.1 no.1244 p.328

"He (the prophet) said, :Go and kill him. I saw him when the time of the afternoon prayer had come. I said : I am afraid if a fight takes place between me and him (Khalid b. Sufyan), that might delay the prayer. I proceeded walking towards him while I was praying by making a sign. When I reached near him, he said to me : Who are you? I replied : A man from the Arabs ; it came to me that you were gathering (any[sp] army) for this man (i.e. the Prophet). Hence I came to you in connection with this matter. ... I then walked along with him for a while; when it became convenient for me, I dominated him with my sword until he became cold (dead)."

Al-Tabari vol.8 p.122

According to Ibn Ishaq: Kinanah b. al-Rabi' b. Abi al-Huqayq who had the treasure of the Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him, but he denied knowing where it [the treasure] was. Then the Messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, "I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning." The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: "What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you. "All right he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it, so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, saying, "Torture him until you root out what he has." Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired [died]; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah."

The list goes on.

CONCLUSIONS:

All the included sources are Muslim sources. A lot of scholars are using this material to come up with Fatwas and also material for their sermons.

If you have read through my brief write-up, you can see that what ISIS is doing today is almost an exact carbon copy of what Muhammad and his warband were doing back then.

Therefore I urge you all to study all the facts about Muhammad and Islam first, before defending the narrative that ISIS is not Islamic.